From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF
	management
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:04:37 +0200
Message-ID: <3664576.rt1sgYQyhm@xps13>
References: <1471528125-26357-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
 <1616711.yO3pyfy9gD@xps13>
 <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C21A08123A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>, "Shah,
 Rahul R" <rahul.r.shah@intel.com>, "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
 azelezniak <alexz@att.com>
To: "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E69C58D4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:04:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id b130so159511436wmc.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C21A08123A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-09-15 16:46, Iremonger, Bernard:
> > > > Do we really need to expose VF specific functions here?
> > > > It can be generic(PF/VF) function indexed only through port_id.
> > > > (example: as rte_eth_dev_set_vlan_anti_spoof(uint8_t port_id,
> > > > uint8_t on)) For instance, In Thunderx PMD, We are not exposing a
> > > > separate port_id for PF. We only enumerate 0..N VFs as 0..N ethdev
> > > > port_id
> > >
> > > Our intention with this patch is to control the VF from the PF.
> > >
> > > The following librte_ether functions already work in a similar way:
> > >
> > > rte_eth_dev_set_vf_rxmode(uint8_t port_id,  uint16_t vf, uint16_t
> > > rx_mode, uint8_t on)
> > >
> > > rte_eth_dev_set_vf_rx(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, uint8_t on)
> > >
> > > rte_eth_dev_set_vf_tx(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, uint8_t on)
> > >
> > > int rte_eth_set_vf_rate_limit(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, uint16_t
> > > tx_rate, uint64_t q_msk)
> > 
> > I have a bad feeling with these functions dedicated to VF from PF.
> > Are we sure there is no other way?
> > I mean we just need to know the VF with a port ID.
> 
> When the VF is used in a VM the port ID of the VF is not visible to the PF.
> I don't think there is another way to do this.

I don't understand why we could not assign a port id to the VF from the
host instead of having the couple PF port id / VF id.
Can we enumerate all the VFs associated to a PF?
Then can we allocate them a port id in the array rte_eth_devices?